or common literature. These two mutually exclusive positions have "ultimately led to methodological confusion," according to Fair.
These methodologies have been put forth in varying forms since the time of Luther, for whom "the key was the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone," to that of the fundamentalist view of "verbal-dictation inspiration," which frequently results in excessive literal textual interpretation to the extent that little recognition is given to the figurative, poetic, or even apocalyptic forms of expression so obviously employed in the Bible. More recently, scholars such as Gadamer, Bultmann, and Heidegger have all placed greater emphasis on the person of the interpreter. That is, the horizons of the interpreter dictate the horizons of the text--there are no fundamental interpretations apart from the cognitive processes of the individual seeking to interpret the text.
Most recently described is the "New Hermeneutic" or "hermeneutic circle," in which the subjective presuppositions of the reader-interpreter of Scripture come to dominate the interpretive process. Faith becomes a "subjective creation of the language-event and not the product of rational analysis and an objective word meaning." This subjective analysis may go so far as to deny an objective historical approach to Scripture, although it can also take such an extreme position that it fails to recognize contemporary meaning and symbolism in favor of literal interpretation.
Obviously, a balanced approach to biblical interpretation should be sought in an effort to preserve both perspectives by establishing a common goal of approaching Scripture with a high regard for the inspiration of God's Word--that lives "must be lived under the authority of the word of God, and that this word is spoken in Scripture." Yet, simultaneously, there must be a recognition that each text was originally prepared with a contemporary mean...